LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[california boy]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe we do know there was less gayness going on a hundred years ago. There are many simple hunter, gatherer societies where it was/is non-existent. There are also cannibalistic societies which used homosexual rites as a passage into cannibal hunting - something I'm sure you will shy away from, but yes, that was definitely before TV and magazines. That doesn't mean it was not a societal issue. While you may think this type of analysis a comedy, I assure you, I do not. I refer you to a recent work about the issue of physical attraction among gay men.  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2011.540184?src=recsys&journalCode=wjhm20

There was also a book by two gay men, but I can't seem to remember it right now.

Well when you form beliefs with absolutely no facts to support your beliefs, then of course you can believe anything you want.  Having a belief doesn't make something true.  

And the article you pointed to is quite odd.  Do you think it is strange that someone who is attracted to males tries to be more masculine because other males are attracted to that attribute?  Are all men that work out and stay in shape gay?  If not, now do you tell the difference?  Because the last I looked, they are all using the same equipment at the gyms I go to.  Sure you will see the odd overweight straight person in there.  We can't figure out a way to keep them out of our "gyms for gays" businesses.  Maybe they are trying to loose weight so that they can also make the leap from being straight to being gay.

I must say, your views on homosexuality are really fascinating. I would love to hear your theories on how someone chooses to be heterosexual. Does it come from watching Bonanza as a kid?  

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

.....................................  a combination of genetic and (mostly) epigenetic factors act during fetal development to imprint sexual preference and gender identity indelibly within the brain. Prince argues that the “biology paradigm” calls for a reassessment of Latter-day Saint doctrines, policies, and attitudes towards homosexuality, all of which were built on a foundation of the “choice paradigm.”..............................................

There is nothing new here.  These facts have been known for years, and I have been saying as much repeatedly on this board.  However, since that is not widely understood, I am happy to see Dr. Prince speaking about the matter.  His points need to be made as forcefully as possible.

However, I am still wondering why so many so-called "christians" are unable to understand Jesus' words about a man being born blind not being at fault -- not him or his parents.  It is so convenient to play the "blame game," and many Mormons used to do the same thing with Black people, passing around the blatantly false story that they were Black and denied priesthood due to lack of being "valiant" in the pre-existence.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing new here.  These facts have been known for years, and I have been saying as much repeatedly on this board.  However, since that is not widely understood, I am happy to see Dr. Prince speaking about the matter.  His points need to be made as forcefully as possible.

However, I am still wondering why so many so-called "christians" are unable to understand Jesus' words about a man being born blind not being at fault -- not him or his parents.  It is so convenient to play the "blame game," and many Mormons used to do the same thing with Black people, passing around the blatantly false story that they were Black and denied priesthood due to lack of being "valiant" in the pre-existence.

So here is my theory.  Gay spirits were involved in designing the fabulous fighting armor in the war in heaven.  As a result of their lack of valiant fighting, God cursed them and made them go to earth having same sex attraction but an amazing sense of design and fashion.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I am happy for a dentist-turned-historian to have and share his opinion on this topic. For what it may be worth, after two postgraduate degrees in history (MA and PhD) and several years working as an editor for an academic history journal, I can honestly say that I don't know a single professionally trained historian who would agree with him.

Not a single one who would agree with him about what?  I think you ended your thought early and failed to tell us all what is wrong with what he said.

 

[Button Gwinnett]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

But only in the last 150 years had same-sex sexuality become an identity and orientation. 

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality has existed since the first humans walked out of Africa

[Button Gwinnett]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

When I see two men doing it on TV - a TV series - I would say that this society has gotten past "homophobia." I do not fear gay men. I have been to a gay night club... I do not perceive a desire to promote heterosexuality on a societal basis as homophobic, but I am sure you disagree.

Yeah, I know the Romans were a profligate society, so let's become one! Yeah, that is the solution! Really? I note they fell to the Teutons, which sadly seemed to have adopted their profligate ways. I don't think adopting the ways of the mother of harlots is the correct attitude.

Rome didn't fall because of their tolerance for homosexuality.  The causes of its fall are multiple, one of which was the embracing of Christianity, but no one, I've read  had pinned its fall on homosexuality

Edited October 19, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality has existed since the first humans walked out of Africa

Ah, well if you are sure, then, who I am I to argue.  Thanks for setting me straight.  And all this time, I thought peer-review and academic study was the way to learn things.  

On the other hand, maybe you didn't really read or understand what I said.  If by Homosexuality, you mean Same-Sex Sexual Behavior or attraction, then you are right.  I'm not arguing against that.  But Behavior =/= Orientation, Attraction =/= Orientation, and Orientation =/= Identity.  Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity are recent ideas and it's laughable when people try to argue against that fact.  

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality has existed since the first humans walked out of Africa

Probably way before that

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity are recent ideas and it's laughable when people try to argue against that fact.  

Quantum physics is also a recent idea - that doesn't mean the things it describes recently came into being. 

[Button Gwinnett]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Ah, well if you are sure, then, who I am I to argue.  Thanks for setting me straight.  And all this time, I thought peer-review and academic study was the way to learn things.  

On the other hand, maybe you didn't really read or understand what I said.  If by Homosexuality, you mean Same-Sex Sexual Behavior or attraction, then you are right.  I'm not arguing against that.  But Behavior =/= Orientation, Attraction =/= Orientation, and Orientation =/= Identity.  Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity are recent ideas and it's laughable when people try to argue against that fact.  

Somewhere on this thread I've been pushed into having to defend homosexuality.  To me that is equivalent to having to defend the rising of the sun in the morning.  Homosexuality among the human family is a reality.  I don't really understand the controversy.  It has always existed among our species and is a fact.  Those who want to cast it as a recent phenomenon are to put it bluntly ill informed.   It has always existed. My point earlier in this thread was to point out that it is the demonizing of homosexual behavior that is a recent phenomenon.  

If by sexual orientation and sexual identity as a new phenomenon perhaps so, but then you must take into account it is only recently that such societal distinctions were needed. The ancient Greeks, for example, did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. People merely engaged in sex with whomever they were attracted to, gender was less important than attraction.

So perhaps we are quibbling over semantics.

 

[Button Gwinnett]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Probably way before that

Yes I agree

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

So here is my theory.  Gay spirits were involved in designing the fabulous fighting armor in the war in heaven.  As a result of their lack of valiant fighting, God cursed them and made them go to earth having same sex attraction but an amazing sense of design and fashion.

What about all the gay people with no fashion sense? Did they just design terrible looking armor?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Rome didn't fall because of their tolerance for homosexuality.  The causes of its fall are multiple, one of which was the embracing of Christianity, but no one, I've read  had pinned its fall on homosexuality

True... according to one apostle, Rome fell because of monogamy.

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  --George Q. Cannon, JoD, v. 13, p. 202

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What about all the gay people with no fashion sense? Did they just design terrible looking armor?

They designed the battle fatigues for the other side.  Oops.  So were cursed for eternity to have no sense of design at all.  You have no idea how they suffer. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

They designed the battle fatigues for the other side.  Oops.  So were cursed for eternity to have no sense of design at all.  You have no idea how they suffer. 

I have no fashion sense or decorating sense so I feel their pain. Either that or I have no idea why either is necessary. When I needed a sectional for my new house I went to the store and sat and laid down on every one and picked the most comfortable one and bought it. Why do people buy leather furniture? Do they actually like sitting on it?

[pogi]

If it is genetic, that raises the question of not only how that should affect religious policies etc., but also how it will be viewed by science.  If genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or not it should be considered a genetic "disorder".  It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure".

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is genetic, that raises the question of not only how that should affect religious policies etc., but also how it will be viewed by science.  If genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or not it should be considered a genetic "disorder".  It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure".

Biological is probably a more appropriate word than genetic in this case. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

So here is my theory.  Gay spirits were involved in designing the fabulous fighting armor in the war in heaven.  As a result of their lack of valiant fighting, God cursed them and made them go to earth having same sex attraction but an amazing sense of design and fashion.

I know that you mean this tongue-in-cheek, but there may be some basis in fact for the this in studies of handedness as a link to particular brain hemisphere specialization, with both genetic and epigenetic causes:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200011/sexuality-hand 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080616-gay-brain_2.html 

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/24/science/left-vs-right-brain-function-tied-to-hormone-in-the-womb.html?pagewanted=all 

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Biological is probably a more appropriate word than genetic in this case. 

Why do you say that, because it might be more epigenetic?  Either way it doesn’t change the questions.  There are epigenetic diseases as well.  Epigenetic diseases, such as fragile x, are often lumped into the classification of “genetic disorders”.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

......................................... The ancient Greeks, for example, did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. People merely engaged in sex with whomever they were attracted to, gender was less important than attraction..................................

Homosexuality among men was cultural in Classical Greece, and virtually everyone did it  It was standard procedure for young men to be introduced to it by an older mentor.  No one questioned it.  Jews and Christians did not accept that norm, and "to corinthianize' became a verb referring to such prohibited sexual antics.

[Button Gwinnett]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is genetic, that raises the question of not only how that should affect religious policies etc., but also how it will be viewed by science.  If genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or not it should be considered a genetic "disorder".  It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure".

So many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.  I'm going to guess that you are a heterosexual man. Imagine your reaction if a gay man posted that your sexual preference was a genetic disorder and that hopefully someday some future advance might find a cure for your disorder.  Would you not consider such a person making such a charge a bigot?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Homosexuality among men was cultural in Classical Greece, and virtually everyone did it  It was standard procedure for young men to be introduced to it by an older mentor.  No one questioned it.  Jews and Christians did not accept that norm, and "to corinthianize' became a verb referring to such prohibited sexual antics.

Well, in ancient Greece/Minoan society it seems that it wasn't necessarily homosexuality like currently thought of. The man of the house could refuse his son. And it seems the son could refuse penetration. It was apparently usually a type of thighing as I gather from the scant evidence, but yes it was societal-wide, and expected of a young man for about 8 years until he became old enough to marry according to their law. For a young man to marry before this age or to have relations with a woman was illegal and punishable by death. I believe at that time he reached the legal age he could leave military service as well.

I believe this is the type of society we are seeing when Lot entered Sodom.

The classical Greek society was a little freer.

Greek society was very militaristic whereas Hebrew society was family centered and the young men usually married when their Greek counterparts where serving in the military. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Why do you say that, because it might be more epigenetic?  Either way it doesn’t change the questions.  There are epigenetic diseases as well.  Epigenetic diseases, such as fragile x, are often lumped into the classification of “genetic disorders”.

Yes, I was thinking epigenetic. But if that's lumped under the term genetic, then I guess I'm wrong!

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Somewhere on this thread I've been pushed into having to defend homosexuality.  To me that is equivalent to having to defend the rising of the sun in the morning.  Homosexuality among the human family is a reality.  I don't really understand the controversy.  It has always existed among our species and is a fact.  Those who want to cast it as a recent phenomenon are to put it bluntly ill informed.   It has always existed. My point earlier in this thread was to point out that it is the demonizing of homosexual behavior that is a recent phenomenon.  

If by sexual orientation and sexual identity as a new phenomenon perhaps so, but then you must take into account it is only recently that such societal distinctions were needed. The ancient Greeks, for example, did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. People merely engaged in sex with whomever they were attracted to, gender was less important than attraction.

So perhaps we are quibbling over semantics.

Yes and no. Homosexuality has existed long before people ever did. It will exist long after we're gone. Demonizing homosexuality also has existed from time beyond recognition, and is largely cultural. The ancient Romans were more tolerant of it than we are today. While Ancient Israel(Just as old if not older) was far harsher than we are today. Outside of my religious sensibilities, my only objection to homosexuality is that from a evolutionary standpoint it is a dead end.

PS; None of the excuses any Church member of mistreating any homosexual.

Edited October 19, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

So many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.  I'm going to guess that you are a heterosexual man. Imagine your reaction if a gay man posted that your sexual preference was a genetic disorder and that hopefully someday some future advance might find a cure for your disorder.  Would you not consider such a person making such a charge a bigot?

So much for trying really hard to keep my comment neutral   I even use quote marks around "cure"! 

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.  I didn't know that there was anything wrong with asking questions, or predicting future debates and questions that might arise in the medical field! 

If you think that this is not going to be a major discussion in the medical field (about how to classify it) if it is found to be of genetic origin, then you are naive.  It will be debated just like it has been in the field of the psychology.   If a therapy becomes available to alter the gene or its expression, then there will be much discussion, not just among the medical field, but also among the insurance companies.  Will it be an operation that insurance will pay for?  That depends partly on how the medical field classifies it.  

But, to answer your question about how I'd feel about a gay man trying to "cure" heterosexuality..."bigot" wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind.  I was thinking more along the lines of "the enemy of the human race"

I would also like to comment that a positive subjective experience of a genetic disorder doesn't make it any less of a genetic disorder.  My son was born with a rare genetic disorder called albinism.  It is a part of his identity, I couldn't imagine him any other way.  He is still a toddler, so I don't know what his feelings about it will be, but I have met many, many in the albino community who would not have it any other way.  The question was asked in one forum, "if you could have been born "normal", would you have chosen that option if you could do it over?  The vast majority of the comments were, "I wouldn't change", "Normal is so...boring!" etc.   There is a sense of albino pride, much like gay pride.  That pride and positive subjective experience doesn't make it any less of a disorder.

The question will be, does it have any biological disadvantage?  The point has already been made, that on an individual level, it does pose a potential evolutionary disadvantage.  That would be the point of argument among the medical community when it comes to classification.  It could theoretically go either way, but it WILL be discussed.  

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by pogi